Lower courts had ruled that Mohammed should have been held for no longer than 96 hours without charge, paving the way for hundreds of other Taliban and Iraqi insurgents to bring legal claims against the Ministry of Defence.

But the Supreme Court in a landmark judgment said the Army had every right to hold Mohammed, who is accused of making explosives on an ‘industrial scale’ - for longer than 96 hours “for imperative reasons of security”.

Supreme Court, LondonCredit:
Getty

The ruling will be seized upon as a victory for campaigners who have argued that the application of human rights laws to conflict zones were making it impossible for British troops to be deployed effectively overseas.

In a further blow - in a separate but connected ruling - the Supreme Court’s second most senior judge Lady Hale said: “It would be absurd if the Government could not be held liable for killing people in battle but could be held liable for detaining them.”

Following his arrest, Mohammed was eventually handed over to Afghan authorities and subsequently jailed for terrorist offences before being released in 2014.

According to the MoD, Mohammed was arrested after a ten-hour fire fight in which a number of men were killed or wounded. He was “seen to flee” the battle, “discarding a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and ammunition as he went”.

We have always been clear that our troops were right to detain Serdar Mohammed, a Taliban commander involved in the production of explosive devices on an industrial scaleMoD

Lord Sumption, who delivered the majority ruling, said the Supreme Court “rejects the conclusion” of the lower courts that “enemy combatants” cannot be held for any longer than 96 hours without charge.

He said that Article Five of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to liberty - was “primarily designed for peacetime conditions” and that “the capture and detention of hostile forces is a necessary feature of the conduct of lawful military operations”.

The Supreme Court ruled that on only more minor issues did the Government’s appeal against earlier rulings fail. It said that the military failed to follow proper procedure by not allowing Mohammed to challenge his detention.

It also said it would be unlawful to have held Mohammed purely for the purposes of interrogating him for intelligence gathering.

Lord Sumption said Mohammed’s lawyers Leigh Day could still sue the Government over those alleged failings but that even if the Taliban commander succeeded he may not receive compensation.

Lord Sumption heard the caseCredit:
Supreme Court

Lord Sumption said: “The procedural defects of the system of review [of his captivity] do not mean that Serdar Mohammed will necessarily be entitled to damages.”

Campaigners will now urge Leigh Day to drop its case. The Telegraph disclosed last year how British troops are under criminal investigation over allegations that Mohammed was assaulted in the operation to arrest him, prompting outrage.

The law firm risks facing a huge bill if it continues with the legal action with the possibility that - even if it is successful on parts of its wide-ranging claim - the compensation paid to Mohammed will be minimal.

A Leigh Day spokesman said: “‘If, in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment the Government is interested in looking to resolve this claim, we will be pleased to take that step, which would ensure the costs are kept to a minimum. Failing that we will be seeking disclosure from the MoD of the evidence underlying Serdar Mohammed’s capture and detention to enable us to review this in the light of today’s judgment.”

The MoD welcomed the ruling. A spokesman said: “We have always been clear that our troops were right to detain Serdar Mohammed, a Taliban commander involved in the production of explosive devices on an industrial scale, so we welcome today’s judgment.

“It is vital that our troops have the ability to detain enemy forces when they are engaged in conflict, and today’s judgment is a significant step in clearing up the legal fog that has surrounded this issue.”